Effect on South American CL: This would make changes linear sequence of the
penguins to reflect recent genetic data.

Background: Our current sequence of the penguins is a conventional
one, based on Falla and Mougin (1979) sequence in Peters Checklist. There is no
controversy in the monophyly of this group, or even that of genera.

New information: Baker et al (2005) have constructed a strongly
supported phylogeny of this group based on 5851bp of mtDNA and nuclear DNA.
They sampled members of all 18 species of penguins, plus two outgroups in their
study. Overall branches of the phylogeny are strongly supported (Bayesian
posterior probabilities, bootstraps), particularly the basal nodes. They
continue by estimating times of divergence and fitting this to a model of
climatic cooling as a driving force behind the expansion of the group outside
of Antarctica and radiation of more derived genera.

The
Antarctic genera, Aptenodytes and Pygoscelis were basal in all
trees. Of the remaining penguins, the crested penguins form one clade, while
the banded penguins and little penguins form a second clade. The Little
Penguins (they consider Eudyptula albosignata the White-flippered
Penguin as separate from the Little Penguin E. minor). Within Spheniscus
the Pacific species (S. humboldti and mendiculus are sisters), whereas
S. magellanicus is sister to the African demersus. Within the
crested penguins, they find that the Erect-crested, Big-crested in our list,
Eudyptes sclateri is the basal Eudyptes (Megadyptes is basal
to Eudyptes). The Rockhopper (Eudyptes chrysocome) is more
closely related to Fiordland (E. pachyrhynchus) and Snares (E.
robustus), forming a clade separate from that of the Macaroni (E.
chrysolophus) and Royal (E. schlegeli). Nothing here is all that
surprising, in fact it is quite well in line with traditional taxonomy with
just a few changes here and there. The taxonomic status of species that have
been controversial in terms of their status such as Eudyptes schlegeli and
Eudyptula albosignata are not tackled in this study.

Analysis and Proposal: This phylogeny appears to be solid, and for
the most part it matches quite well with published taxonomies of this group.
There is nothing revolutionary in the phylogeny itself, the paper's interest is
largely the model suggested for expansion of the group out of Antarctica and
speciation thereafter. I will note that it is great to have a molecular
phylogeny that actually includes all living species of a group.

Recommendation: Because our linear sequence and classification should
reflect phylogenetic data, and because the data appear solid, I will vote YES
on this new re-arrangement of the penguins.

References:

BAKER,
A.J., S.L.PEREIRA, O.P. HADDRATH, AND K-A. EDGE. 2005. Multiple gene evidence
for expansion of extant penguins out of Antarctica due to global cooling.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 1-7.

Comments from Remsen: "YES. Of interest in looking at Baker et
al. (2005) is that the previous analyses based on phenotypic characters, from
myology to behavior, all differ from one another and from the solid genetic
data of Baker et al.; however, Sibley-Ahlquist DNA-DNA hybridization data
entirely consistent with the DNA sequence data."

Comments from Stiles: "YES. No problems here, the genetic
data seem solid and the change is not profound in any case."